Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TAY ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

Crown Jewels

1. Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when suitable arrangements will be made for displaying the Crown Jewels so that visitors can see them without the necessity for long queueing to the disappointment of tourists.

6. Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he proposes to start work on an underground building at Tower Green for better display of the Crown Jewels.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. Richard Sharples): My right hon. Friend is examining the schemes which have been prepared for a new Jewel House and will make a statement as soon as he can.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my hon. Friend inform his right hon. Friend that a foreign visitor who stayed in my house queued for over an hour to see the jewels? Is my hon. Friend further aware that parties of Women's Institutes coming to London do not think it is worth going to the Tower to see the jewels for this reason? Would it not be better to display the jewels in a larger underground room so that more people could see them at a time than is possible at present in the very narrow place in which they are on show?

Mr. Sharples: My right hon. Friend appreciates the difficulties which visitors have in trying to see the regalia, and he will do everything he can to provide better facilities as soon as that is possible, but I think that my hon. Friend would agree that it is not an easy matter to design and construct new accommodation which will be absolutely secure and, at the same time, display the regalia to more visitors.

Building Industry

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) what proposals he has made, following the Emmerson Report, for utilising the maximum capacity of the building industry in those areas where there is unemployment amongst building workers;
(2) in view of the pressure on the building industry in some parts of the country resulting in the general limitation of Government expenditure on public building, what steps he is taking to increase the capacity of the building industry.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I will be giving consideration to these matters.

Mr. Boyden: That is a pretty stony answer. What comment has the right hon. Gentleman to make on the paragraph in the Emmerson Report which refers to the way in which the surge of private enterprise building has passed Scotland and my constituency by and caused twice the unemployment in the building industry in Scotland compared with England and Wales, and what constructive steps is he going to take for areas like Scotland and my constituency?

Mr. Rippon: These are, of course, very important matters. I am studying the whole Emmerson Report, not only one paragraph of it. I frequently find it better to allow thought to precede action.

Building Contracts

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what are the customary additions above the cost of labour and new materials in the public works and building trade when


working on Government contracts; and if he will give the corresponding figure when secondhand materials are specified.

Mr. Rippon: There are no set figures customarily quoted in either case.

Sir Richard Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend have a look at this question, because it is widely believed that very substantial additions are sometimes made in these cases whereby it is possible that public money may be excessively expended, and it is believed that that is especially so when secondhand materials are very properly specified? I ask my right hon. Friend to look into the matter to see whether economies can be effected.

Mr. Rippon: I will certainly look into the matter, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could give me further details of any matter he has in mind. Of course, the majority of contracts now are fixed-price lump-sum contracts entered into on a competitive basis. How the contractor arrives at his tender is, of course, no concern of ours.

No. 10 Downing Street

Mr. Box: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works which specifically Welsh building materials are being used in the reconstruction of No. 10 Downing Street.

Mr. Sharples: Welsh slates are being used to replace all slated roofs of No. 10 Downing Street and also 11 and 12 Downing Street.

Mr. Box: Is my hon. Friend aware that that information will be warmly received in all parts of Wales, particularly in those areas which are so dependent on the slate industry? Will my hon. Friend further endeavour, wherever possible, to use Welsh slate on other buildings under the control of the Ministry and also to give the widest possible publicity to the fact that Welsh slate is being used on this important building so that other architects and designers may follow the good example of his Ministry?

Mr. Sharples: Yes, Sir.

Mr. W. R. Williams: May I also put in a word on behalf of Wales and supplement what the hon. Member has said?

Will the Minister bring to the notice of all contractors, especially those connected with public works, the great improvement which has taken place in the quarry industry and the need to support it?

Mr. Speaker: That seems to be very far away from Downing Street.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Television Station, Weardaie

Mr. Ainsley: asked the Postmaster-General if he has yet come to a decision on the site of a satellite television station in Weardale for the north-west Durham area.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): The B.B.C. tells me it hopes to start a survey in the Weardale area about the beginning of September. It will, however, take some time to select a site which will give the best coverage, since this is particularly difficult country and a series of tests will need to be made.

Mr. Ainsley: Will the Postmaster-General bear in mind that the North-East still suffers from a shared sound wavelength and that many of my constituents, together with the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), are paying an additional fee to private firms to have a television picture? Will he seek to remove these anomalies before he considers any national increase in the licence fee?

Mr. Bevins: I will certainly bear in mind the considerations the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Mr. Mason: The right hon. Gentleman is do doubt aware that there are still a number of shadow areas. Has any survey been carried out nationally by the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to ascertain all the difficulties involved and what early prospects there are of giving shadow areas good reception?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, The B.B.C. and the I.T.A. have this constantly under review. The B.B.C, in particular, is pressing forward with Stages 1, 2 and 3 of its plans for new stations, and eventually Stage 4, to help areas with poor reception.

Sound Broadcasting (All-night Programmes)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Postmaster-General if he will exercise his powers under Section 15 (1) of the Licence and Agreement of the British Broadcasting Corporation to amend the prescribed hours of Home sound broadcasting, so that the British Broadcasting Corporation could broadcast all-night programmes of music for the benefit of sick and elderly people.

Mr. Bevins: The B.B.C. has never sought a prescription of this kind. It has said, however, that it would wish to extend the Light Programme up to 2 a.m. in due course, and, as paragraph 21 of the White Paper on Broadcasting says, extensions up to this hour will be authorised. I think this is as far as we should go at present.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that for the elderly, the sick, the disabled and the injured these hours can be hours of loneliness and, in some circumstances, fear? Would it not be worth while having some experiment into the possibility or advisability of providing some form of light music as solace during this period?

Mr. Bevins: I confess that I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but I find it rather surprising that the hon. Gentleman or anybody else should think that sick and elderly people want to listen to light music throughout the night.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Postmaster-General aware that there is quite a demand for this from my part of the country? Representations have been made to me to that effect. I am surprised that he is out of touch with the feelings of some sections of the community. I ask him to reconsider the matter and gain some information about it. Some research should be conducted into the matter.

Mr. Lagden: Does my right hon. Friend think that there is any connection between this Question concerning sick and elderly people and the length of all-night sittings?

Budleigh Salterton, Sidmouth and Seaton

Mr. Mathew: asked the Postmaster General if he will give an assurance that

substantial improvement in the British Broadcasting Corporation television reception in the areas of Budleigh Salterton, Sidmouth and Seaton will be achieved before a third channel is initiated for the benefit of more favoured areas.

Mr. Bevins: I recognise, and so does the B.B.C, that an improvement in reception is desirable in the area to which my hon. Friend refers, and the needs of the area will be borne in mind in future planning.

Mr. Mathew: Will my right hon. Friend not only take it into account but ensure that early action is taken in this regard, because there is often a very substantial difference in the quality of reception in these areas as between the I.T.A. and B.B.C? An immediate improvement is essential.

Mr. Bevins: Yes. I recognise what my hon. Friend says. Although the B.B.C. has made no proposals about satellite stations in the third stage of its programme, I hope that it will do so in the next one.

Mr. P. Browne: May I press the point on my right hon. Friend which I made the other day, that it would be more sensible to get proper reception in these areas on the existing B.B.C channel before we start on another one?

Mr. Bevins: No. I do not altogether accept that point of view, because the probability is that when programmes are put out on U.H.F. on bands 4 and 5 reception right throughout the country will be better.

Doctors (Broadcasts)

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will require the British Broadcasting Corporation, under Section 15 (4) of the Licence and Agreement, to refrain from sending broadcasts by practising members of the medical profession, unless their anonymity is effectively guaranteed.

Mr. Bevins: The matter raised by my hon. Friend is really one for the B.B.C. and the medical profession. The inclusion of the surgeon's name in the broadcast I think my hon. Friend has in mind was most unfortunate. It was made inadvertently and the B.B.C. has apologised.

Dr. Johnson: Despite what my right hon. Friend says, will he ask the B.B.C. generally to get itself organised on this question of names? I accept that this unfortunate incident happened in the way he has described, but I seem to remember that a year or two ago I got myself into great trouble for using a name which was already entirely public. There does not seem to be any system about the use of names on the B.B.C.

Mr. Bevins: I have discussed this unfortunate error with the B.B.C. As my hon. Friend knows, the Corporation normally respects the wishes of the General Medical Council that members of the profession should remain anonymous. Even if I were to take the action suggested in the Question, it would not prevent an occasional lapse of this kind occurring.

Programmes

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Postmaster-General when he received a communication from the hon. Member for Carlisle about the content of British Broadcasting Corporation programmes; and if he will give a direction to the British Broadcasting Corporation under the Licence and Agreement not to broadcast programmes containing epithets such as those contained in the communication.

Mr. Bevins: I received my ban. Friend's letter on 10th July. The powers of direction contained in Clause 15 (4) of the B.B.C. Licence and Agreement were not designed to enable me to control the detailed content of B.B.C. programmes, and I regret that I cannot agree to use them for the purpose my hon. Friend has in mind.

Dr. Johnson: Despite what my right hon. Friend has said, is he aware that this is in fact the only allegation of this kind I have received from my constituents about any broadcasting? In the event of his appointing any future commission in connection with broadcasting, may I ask him to include one of my constituents with a view to presenting a balanced point of view?

Mr. Bevins: I will consider that idea, but I have also discussed this with the B.B.C. and the Corporation tells me that

it does not deliberately set out to shock or offend people. Very often the cam-plaint is the other way round. The B.B.C. is sorry if the use of these expletives has given offence to some of my horn. Friend's constituents. The same expletives were also used on a recorded television programme, and they came from the lips of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: The Minister and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) are indulging in a very esoteric discussion. May we be told what it is all about? Is it not in the public interest when allegations of this kind are made about broadcasts that we should know what the allegation is, what the programme is, and what they are talking about?

Mr. Bevins: I should be very glad to tell the hon. Gentleman what the characters were talking about, but I am afraid that Mr. Speaker would rule me out of order if I did.

Dr. Johnson: In the light of what the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) has said, I think my hon. Friend will agree that I did send him the actual instance, and if he would kindly return the letter to me I should be very glad to have it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not understand this—it is neither a Question nor something prompted by a matter of information not given to the Minister.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Ordinarily, this would rest where you want it to rest, but the Postmaster-General has used the name of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Surely, as my right hon. Friend is not here, the Postmaster-General will at least publish in HANSARD what the complaint is?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what this treasured word was—[Laughter.]—but I do not propose to stick my neck out by forcing unparliamentary language in obedience to a point of order because I do not know what it was.

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the evidence, contained in the annual report of the Chief Commissioner of Police for


the Metropolis, that violence on television contributes largely to increased criminal activity, he will exercise his powers under Section 15 (4) of the Licence and Agreement of the British Broadcasting Corporation and Section 9 (2) of the Television Act, 1954, to require the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority to refrain from showing programmes containing violence and brutality.

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. The powers of direction contained in the B.B.C. Licence and Agreement and in the Television Act were not designed to enable me to control the detailed content of B.B.C. and I.T.A. programmes. The Government are, however, concerned to improve the standards of television programmes and recognise that programmes should, in particular, include less violence. As stated in the White Paper on Broadcasting, we shall discuss these matters with the B.B.C. and I.T.A.

Mr. Yates: I appreciate that Answer, but the Commissioner of Police has stated that it is not only his opinion but, he says, the belief of every policeman that the daily presentation of violence in dramatic form has largely contributed to the increase in crime. How long are we to wait before some action is taken to minimise this?

Mr. Bevins: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The Chief Commissioner of Police for the Metropolitan area did not say that at all. He referred to one possible contributory cause of the increase in crime and then referred to television, but made it perfectly dear that there was no evidence in support of this assertion. The amount of crime and violence shown on television is one thing and the effect that it has on society is quite another. That is why I think that the whole House welcomed the initiative of the then Home Secretary in setting up a study group or committee to look into this whole matter.

Mr. Wade: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that while it is difficult 'to prove the effect of a particular programme on the viewing public, the degree of violence and brutality contributes to the climate in which our young people are growing up? Surely he should take this report very seriously and also his duties under the Act.

Mr. Bevins: Of course, the hon. Gentleman may well be right, and it is precisely on account of that possibility that we have stated in the White Paper that in the Government's view there is an excess of violence and crime on television at the present time, and we propose to discuss this with the authorities to try to improve the position.

Mr. Yates: I hope that I did not misrepresent the Commissioner of Police, but the words he uses in the Report are:
… but it is my belief and that I think of all policemen, that the daily presentation of crime in dramatic form …
has largely contributed to the increase in crime. That is on page 10 of the Report.

Mr. Bevins: I have read the Report very fully, and what I have said is, I Chink, a fair representation of what the Chief Commissioner stated.

28. Mr. Mayhew: asked the Post-master-General when he proposes to start discussions with the Independent Television Authority on the problems of violence and triviality in television programmes and on the natural break, in accordance with paragraphs 40 and 65 of Command Paper No. 1770.

Mr. Bevins: I hope to start discussions with the broadcasting authorities on the standards of television programmes, and with the I.T.A. on natural breaks, very soon after the forthcoming debate in this House.

Mr. Mayhew: While sharing the Minister's anxiety not to intervene with the content of the programmes either of B.B.C. or of I.T.A., is he aware that there is public feeling that these discussions should take place and that he should take a firm line on them, and will he say when he intends to report to the House on this and in what form?

Mr. Bevins: I have already said that these discussions will take place at an early date, and I always take a firm line over everything.

Advertising

Mr. Chapman: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the profits now declared by television programme contractors and of the fact that 80 per cent. of the public criticise


advertising in natural breaks, he will introduce legislation restricting television advertising to periods between programmes while also limiting the number of short programmes in any three-hour period.

Mr. Bevins: The hon. Member will have seen from paragraph 65 of the Government's White Paper that we now propose to discuss with the I.T.A. the question of a possible change in the minimum interval of time between breaks.

Mr. Chapman: But would not my proposal take care of the danger noted in the Pilkington Report that to limit the advertising in the way I suggest might lead to a proliferation of rather short programmes? Secondly, is the Postmaster-General aware that the public are getting rather fed up with seeing stupendous profits made out of this intrusion into viewing time, and would it not be good to put on a physical limitation of the kind I have suggested? That would make everybody happy.

Mr. Bevins: Frankly, if the hon. Gentleman had any idea of the complexities associated with the question of natural breaks, I doubt whether he would have asked those two supplementary questions. I have given an enormous amount of thought to the matter, and I have come to the conclusion that the best way to tackle it is to have early talks with the I.T.A. to see what we can hammer out.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I refused to be included in "everybody"?

Mr. Mayhew: The Minister says that he has given considerable thought to this problem, but is he aware that the abuse of the natural break, which is now generally deplored, has in fact been defended at that Dispatch Box by himself and his predecessor, and will he now take a much stronger line with I.T.A. on this?

Mr. Bevins: I do not think that it is very rewarding to look at the past; we have to look to the future.

Mr. Eden: Surely the remedy is in the hands of the viewer—to reach out and turn off the knob.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Mobile Post Offices

Mr. P. Browne: asked the Postmaster-General if he will examine the possibility of introducing mobile post offices to serve the remoter rural areas where full-time offices have had to be withdrawn.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): I have looked carefully into my hon. Friend's suggestion; but I am afraid mobile post offices would be a very uneconomic way of giving counter services in these areas. The rural postman on his rounds sells postage and savings stamps; he also buys postal orders for customers on request, and accepts telegrams and unregistered and registered letters and parcels for despatch, and I think this provides a reasonable alternative.

Mr. Browne: May I make it clear to my hon. Friend that I am not suggesting that this should be an alternative for existing posit offices, but is she aware that in scattered districts where post offices have been closed there is considerable hardship and inconvenience caused, particularly to the elderly who wish to draw their pensions, and so on? May I suggest that it is time that the Government ceased to chip away at all our rural services as they seem to be doing at the moment?

Miss Pike: I accept the difficulties of rural areas because I live in one myself, but I do not accept that we chip away at rural services. I believe that we give as good and as economic a service as possible. I said in my Answer that the rural postman serves as a good friend to people in these areas.

Sub-Postmistress, Bristol (Award)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make an additional monetary award to the sub-postmistress in Bristol, details of whom have been sent to him, who was recently attacked while on duty.

Mr. Bevins: These awards have always been regarded as tokens of the Post Office appreciation of the person's


conduct. I should not think it appropriate to increase the particular award which I was glad to be able to make personality to this gallant lady whose services the Post Office has greatly appreciated.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that this lady does not seek publicity. In fact, she resents it. All modest people who perform deeds of this character are like that. However, she sustained a bone fracture and was knocked about by these men, who were subsequently captured. Then the Minister gave her an award of £20. She did her duty to the public and the Minister ought to do his duty and award more than £20 in a case of this character.

Mr. Bevins: The position is nothing like as simple as the hon. Gentleman represents it to be. This was a token award in recognition of this lady's gallantry, but, in addition, during the time she was disabled the Post Office made arrangements for her welfare and paid for substitute staff. The truth of the matter is that this lady has expressed her appreciation of the attitude of the Post Office.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that he had another case last week in South Wales where 15 guineas were awarded but no train fare and not even an opportunity to buy a meal? The man in this case did exactly the same as the lady in Bristol did. I ask the Minister to reconsider his attitude in this matter.

Mr. Bevins: I think that the Post Office behaves very well in these cases. If the hon. Gentleman wants to table Questions about other cases, I should be glad to answer them.

Postal Services (Birmingham—Edinburgh)

Mr. Cleaver: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to improve the postal service between Hay Mills, Yardley, Birmingham, and Edinburgh.

Miss Pike: I am looking into this matter and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. Cleaver: Would not my hon. Friend agree, and bear in mind the fact,

that if it takes two days for a firm situate in Yardley to communicate with its subsidiary in Edinburgh, it shows extreme inefficiency and is liable to cause delays and unnecessary expense? Would she also bear in mind the fact that there are, on occasions, criticisms in Birmingham that it takes two days for a letter to travel from one part of the city to another?

Miss Pike: We are, of course, anxious to keep our services as efficient as possible and to give a good service between Birmingham and Edinburgh, and we are taking steps to ensure that that is carried out.

Letters (Franking)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is a body with purely political aims, and in view of the fact that it franks letters with the words "Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament," he will take steps to see that the use of this frank is discontinued.

Miss Pike: This particular frank incorporates the title and symbol of the organisation concerned and was supplied to it some years ago by our agents. As I told my hon. Friend on 22nd May, it is used by the organisation on its own correspondence only.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will my hon. Friend be assured that I am not getting at this organisation on political grounds, but that the point at issue is whether, for purely political reasons, political propaganda should be made use of in the Royal Mail?

Miss Pike: I do not think that the use of the name of the organisation strictly comes under the heading of political propaganda. It is the name of the organisation and, on those grounds, we consider that it would probably be unwise to go further in the matter.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is it not the case that the use of the words "political propaganda" in this connection usually means not questions that have a broad political significance but questions of party political propaganda? Is it not clear that this organisation is not limited to a single party and that its aim, which is to discredit the use of


nuclear weapons throughout the world, is one that it is in the public interest to popularise?

Miss Pike: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I would again repeat to the House that it is the name of the organisation and that the organisation is quite at liberty to print it on its envelopes if it so wishes. My own personal view is that we should, perhaps, leave the matter as it is.

Telecommunications Equipment (Purchase)

Mr. Arbuthnot: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet reached a decision regarding the future of the Post Office bulk supply agreements for the purchase of telecommunications equipment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bevins: I have given the most thorough consideration to the bulk supply agreements made by the Post Office with the principal telecommunications manufacturers. I have decided to change the present arrangements.
I am informing the manufacturers concerned that I propose to purchase all cable and loading coils as from April next by competitive tender. I am also proposing that, when the telephone apparatus agreement comes to be renewed next April, provision should be made to increase the proportion of orders that may be placed outside the agreement from 10 per cent. to 25 per cent. I regard the exchange equipment agreement as being a special case, and I propose to continue it.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the announcement he has just made will, so far as it goes, be received with great satisfaction by all members of the Public Accounts Committee on both sides of the House, but will he say why the proportion is only to go up to 25 per cent.? Would he also say why he regards the exchange equipment agreement as being a special case to be continued?

Mr. Bevins: I think that the increase in the reservation provision for telephone apparatus from 10 per cent. to 25 per cent. is, for the moment, just about as far as we can go, but there we must wait to see what the reaction of the

manufacturers is before we see the shape of things to come. I think that the exchange equipment agreement is a special case and one that does not lend itself to competition. This is highly specialised equipment, and, of course, the Post Office works in the closest co-operation and partnership with the principal manufacturers in quite refined electronic developments.

Mr. Mason: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this side of the House welcomes his statement because he is at last starting to break down the monopoly position of the manufacturers' "ring"? There is the question of the ring keeping its monopoly position in regard to exchange equipment. Is not the Postmaster-General aware that a month after the Public Accounts Committee reported, a further merger took place inside this particular ring and that the Plessey Company, the Automatic Telephone and Electric Company and Ericsson Telephones merged in a £55 million merger and captured 40 per cent. of all the telecommunication and telephone equipment supplied to the Post Office? Will he say to what extant now this ring, or this combine within the ring of firms, will be able to carry on in its monopoly position in regard to exchange equipment?

Mr. Bevins: There is no monopoly position in the sphere of exchange equipment. I think that the steps I have announced to the House this afternoon represent a vary reasonable move towards genuine competition in this field, and I think that we would be very well advised to see how the new arrangements work out before coming to further conclusions.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I take it that the Postmaster-General has it in mind to review these agreements periodically, and at much more frequent intervals than in the past?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir, certainly. After a reasonable interval of time we shall see how the new arrangements are working out and shape our course accordingly.

Forces Savings Branch

Mr. Hiley: asked the Postmaster-General (1) what is the annual cost of running the Forces Savings


Branch; and what percentage of the Forces avail themselves of this service;
(2) what is the average annual amount of deposits in, and withdrawals from, the Forces Savings Branch; and what is the average balance on individual personal accounts, as distinct from club accounts.

Miss Pike: The cost of running the Forces Savings Branch was £691,000 in 1961. A total of 51 per cent. of the Forces use this service. The average annual total of deposits, in terms of the past three years, is £24·9 million, and of withdrawals £25·1 million. The average balance on individual accounts is £28 6s. 8d.

Mr. Hiley: I thank my hon. Friend for that information, but does she not consider that the cost of administering the scheme is very high in relation to the numbers using it and the amount of money involved? Further, would she ask her right hon. Friend whether he will look into the problem to see whether it is possible to find a cheaper system of securing this end without damaging the thrift of those concerned?

Miss Pike: It is, of course, a fairly expensive scheme to work, but I think that we all accept that on social grounds it is very valuable and that none of us would like to see it discontinued. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are all the time trying to find out more economical ways of running the service and will, therefore, keep in mind what he says. But it is a good thing to start the habit of saving among Service people.

Mr. W. R. Williams: While I agree with almost everything that the hon. Lady says, will she and her right hon. Friend keep in mind the advantages of the giro system in dealing with members of the Forces and of the civilian community?

Miss Pike: We will certainly keep that in mind.

Kiosks, London (Damage)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Postmaster-General to what extent, during the last twelve months, the number of incidents of wilful damage to apparatus in telephone kiosks in the borough of Leyton and elsewhere in the London

area has increased; and what further means are now in operation to prevent or minimise such damage.

Mr. Bevins: I am glad to say that the extent of wilful damage to apparatus in telephone kiosks in the East Telephone Area of London, including the borough of Leyton, has been materially reduced during the past twelve months, I feel sure that the hon. Member will agree that it would be unwise to describe in detail the measures that have led to this welcome improvement.

Mr. Sorensen: While I express great pleasure at the information given by the right hon. Gentleman, will he at least in general say whether the method of detection is now some method of giving audible notice of any attempted depredations in these kiosks.

Mr. Bevins: Broadly speaking, the answer to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is "Yes".

Post Office, Leytonstone

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Postmaster-General when it is intended to open the new post office in High Road, Leytonstone; how long since the premises were acquired it has taken to reconstruct and prepare the office; what are the extended facilities for the public; and to what extent business has increased during the last five years at the existing High Road office.

Miss Pike: I am glad to say that the new branch post office at Leytonstone High Road was opened for business yesterday. Completion of the scheme was unfortunately delayed for some months, partly because of a number of small difficulties arising in the course of the work, and partly as a result of a change in operational requirements to enable "all purpose" service to be introduced. The volume of business has not increased during the past five years.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the hon. Lady why a note could not have been put in the old Post Office to indicate when the new one was to be opened? I have had several inquiries on this point. As a matter of fact, I now know through the local Press that it is open, but I did not know that when I put down the Question.

Miss Pike: I shall look into that.

Coventry

Mr. Hocking: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he proposes to take to improve the telephone service in the Coventry district.

Mr. Bevins: I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction with the telephone service in the Coventry district. 90 per cent. of Coventry subscribers now have S.T.D., and it is to be extended to the remaining 10 per cent. within the next few months. If my hon. Friend has particular difficulties in mind and will let me have details, I will gladly make inquiries.

Mr. Hocking: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that Coventry has had one of the longest waiting lists for telephones almost since the war, and would he try to provide on the new estates more telephone kiosks? Is he not aware that those subscribers who have not subscriber trunk dialling have to wait on occasions for as long as four minutes for the operator to answer the telephone? Could not he see that more operators are present on some occasions?

Mr. Bevins: I was not aware from the phrasing of the Question that my hon. Friend was referring to 'the difficulty of getting new telephones installed, but I shall certainly look at the position in Coventry. As to kiosks, in general, the Post Office is opposed to putting up more telephone kiosks because we lose so much money on them. The service during the late hours in the evening in Coventry is not as good as I should like to see it, due to the shortage of staff, but we are doing all that we can to put it right.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Slag Heaps

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what information he has about the progress which has been made in the creation of public parks out of pit slag-heaps; and whether he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Corfield): My right hon.

Friends information does not distinguish public parks from other open space. In England and Wales grant or loan sanction has been given since 1946 for reclaiming 234 acres of spoil heaps which local authorities proposed to use for open space purposes. In addition the reviews of development plans so far submitted to him by local planning authorities under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 show that 54 acres of spoil heaps have been reclaimed for open space.

Mr. Jeger: While that report is very encouraging, does not the hon. Gentle-man feel that the progress is very slow indeed and that many more of these man-made monstrosities might be abolished and turned into parks of public amenity and beauty? Is he aware that this has been done extensively in Europe not only with regard to slag heaps but also bomb damage and rubble heaps, and could not he get a move on to do work of that kind in Britain?

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend appreciates the value of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and is preparing a booklet describing and illustrating a number of schemes which have been carried out in recent years. He hopes that this will stimulate further interest and effort.

New Office Building

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if toe will make a statement on the policy he will adopt towards the location of new office building; and whether he will seek powers to prohibit new developments which conflict with public policy.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): This is under urgent consideration.

Mr. Prentice: As a new Minister, will he show whatever urgency he can about this? Does he agree that there is no hope of having an intelligent policy for the distribution of employment until there is an intelligent policy over the distribution of office and that no one will solve the problem of housing in London until the latter problem has been solved?

Sir K. Joseph: I can only repeat what I said.

Mr. Wainwright: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take into account the number of betting offices being put up at present? Will he restrict this number until more houses are built?

Sir K. Joseph: That is a separate matter, but when betting offices need planning permission all such factors are taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Slum Clearance

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, if he will now publish the revised programmes for slum clearance submitted to him by local authorities at his request; and if he will make a statement.

Sir K. Joseph: In Circular No. 2/60 local authorities were asked to submit further proposals for slum clearance where appropriate, at a stage depending on their progress with what are known as the 1955 proposals. As the majority of local authorities have not yet submitted further proposals, and as those that have been submitted relate to widely differing base dates and may well be subject to further revision, I do not think any useful purpose would be served by publishing those my Department has so far received.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that he or his predecessor was able some years ago to publish such a report, and may I ask him how it is proposed to help these local authorities to accelerate their slum clearance programmes, as at the present rate it will take two generations in some areas to do so? Is this not a national problem requiring national assistance?

Sir K. Joseph: We were able to publish some detailed figures in 1960 because we had a special survey. I do not want to take away officers who are on the job now to make another survey when we are hoping to make individual contacts with the authorities most in need. I think that is how we could help most.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Research Work (Expenditure)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount spent annually by Her Majesty's Government on research work; what proportion of this is devoted to military purposes, and how much to the health development of the nation.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): The available information does not distinguish between research expenditure and development expenditure. Total Government expenditure on research and development is of the order of £400 million a year; about three-fifths of this is for defence, where development work is the major element. Expenditure by the Government on health and medical research, including an allowance for that at universities, is about £15 million a year.

Mr. Awbery: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why his Department is always so parsimonious and cheeseparing when it comes to expenditure on health whereas expenditure on destruction or research work for destruction is given out ad lib?

Mr. Barber: As I think I indicated, the figures for defence and health are not really comparable because the proportions spent on development work as distinct from research are greater in the case of defence than for health. In view of the hon. Gentleman's observations, however, I should point out that the total of Government expenditure provided in the current Estimates for health and welfare is £768 million.

Iron and Steel Industry

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further progress has now been made in steel denationalisation; what steps he now proposes to take in connection with the sale of Richard Thomas and Baldwins Ltd., in view of the impending completion of the Spencer works; what is the aggregate inventory value of steel stocks and shares of all classes still held by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency at the latest convenient date; and how this figure compares with the


aggregate inventory value when the denationalisation programme was inaugurated in 1953.

Mr. Barber: The book value to the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency of its investments and obligations on the 20th July, 1953, was £364·3 million. The book value on the 20th July, 1962, was £155 million, of which £73·9 million related to securities in and loans to Richard Thomas and Baldwins Ltd. The House was recently informed of the sale by the Agency of its debentures in the Guest Keen and Nettlefolds Companies, with a book value of £29 million. I have nothing to add to previous statements concerning Richard Thomas and Baldwins Ltd.

Mr. Nabarro: Would my hon. Friend confirm that it remains the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to follow the earlier statements made by four of his Conservative predecessors to complete the denationalisation of steel in the lifetime of this Parliament?

Mr. Barber: I think I cannot do better than to repeat to my hon. Friend and the House the very clear expression of intention by my right hon. Friend the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer which remains our policy, namely, when he said on 22nd May last:
We have said again and again that our intention is that the concern should be de-vested, but when depends on the circumstances. I think that the important factor is to judge the time at which a fair price can be obtained, and that depends on the development plan, which is not yet completed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1962; Vol. 660, c. 214.]

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: In spite of the egregious clamour of the hon. Member who tabled this Question, will the Financial Secretary bear in mind the fact that there is a very considerable body of opinion in this country which is most interested to see a publicly and privately owned steel industry going along side by side to show the irrelevance of the ownership of the capital to the efficiency of a concern?

Mr. Barber: We all have our own particular contacts, but I am bound to say that I have not found the people of this country over-enthusiastic for nationalisation.

Mr. M. Foot: Does the Financial Secretary not recognise that the Labour

Party is fully committed to the nationalisation of the whole of the steel industry? Would not the Chancellor of the Exchequer serve the interests of the whole steel industry much better by making it quite clear that there is not the foggiest chance of their being able to denationalise Richard Thomas and Baldwins Ltd.?

Mr. Barber: I am sure that the House will be grateful to the hon. Member for that clear expression of policy.

MEMBERS' SALARIES

Mr. Gurden: asked the Prime Minister what consultations there have been with regard to finding acceptable machinery to investigate and determine the scales of payment of honourable Members of Parliament and Ministers.

Mr. Mason: asked the Prime Minister if he will now give consideration to the proposal that a non-Parliamentary Commission be appointed to examine the present method and scale of payment to honourable Members of Parliament and Ministers with a view to allowing recommendations which would provide a more permanent solution of payment for the future.

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Prime Minister what proposals he has for setting up independent machinery to recommend appropriate salary scales for Ministers and honourable Members of Parliament.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I am considering various suggested methods of dealing with Ministers' and Members' salaries, but I do not at present contemplate setting up special machinery.

Mr. Gurden: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that this problem always causes extreme difficulties for any party which is in government? Is it not properly the responsibility of all hon. Members, and could we, perhaps, invite the comments of the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party on this matter?

The Prime Minister: Of course, I understand the difficulties, but I am not


persuaded that the House is anxious to hand over its responsibilities to some other body.

Mr. Mason: Might I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the extent of his reply, which indicated that at least the matter was under review and that he was considering what he could do? Is he not aware that it is in the interests of all hon. Members, Ministers and, indeed, the public that we should stop this consistent, periodic, sordid survey of hon. Members' salaries, which has been subject now for many years to a three-or four-year periodic review? Would it not be far better if the suggestion contained in the all-party Questions on the Order Paper could be adopted by the Prime Minister? Has he anything in mind to assess this particular point of view of the House?

The Prime Minister: Of course, I am conscious of the arguments. On the other hand, I think there are some arguments for which the House should accept its own responsibilities. However, as I say, I am considering this matter which, I think, is really in the long run a matter about which the general sense of the House should be taken.

Sir C. Osborne: Is the Prime Minister aware that many hon. Members and far more people outside think that it would be most untimely to take this step now? Before he is induced to take this step, will my right hon. Friend consider what repercussions there would be among, fox instance, the old-age pensioners?

The Prime Minister: All these matters are, of course, relevant, but the real question is on whom should the responsibility lie?

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that most of us would accept the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) that this is essentially a matter for the House as a whole and that it should be considered by ail parties together? The Prime Minister said that he had been considering ways and moans. Would he be prepared to receive an all-party deputation —perhaps the three hon. Members who have tabled the Questions under discussion could represent other hon.

Members—to discuss their particular proposal? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while appreciating that there are certain objections to outside bodies, there is also a fairly strong argument in favour of this kind of decision being, to some extent, supported by outside evidence and the views of outsiders? Many of us feel that there is something a little undignified for the House of Commons to have continually to revert to this subject. Many of us would support a system such as exists in some countries whereby the salaries of hon. Members are automatically related to those of other public servants.

The Prime Minister: I am willing to consider all these questions. If the Leader of the Opposition would like to discuss the matter with me personally, or if there were a desire for an all-party deputation either to me or the Leader of the House, we would be happy to receive it.

Mr. Grimond: The House will be grateful to the Prime Minister for having said that he has got the matter under consideration. It is never a convenient moment for the House of Commons, of its own accord, to vote itself an increase in salary. This is a powerful reason for having a more detached process for deciding whether an increase is justified. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider the suggestions that have been made to him.

The Prime Minister: All these matters, of course, would be discussed if we had this meeting.

NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. M. Foot: asked the Prime Minister whether he has asked President Kennedy for details of the numbers of nuclear tests, both in the atmosphere and underground, which the United States Government intends to authorise in the present series of tests; and what was the reply.

The Prime Minister: As I have told the House, I was fully consulted about the programme of tests at Christmas Island before it began, and I have been kept fully informed of its progress. There have been 24 tests in this series, which is now completed.

Mr. Foot: When the Prime Minister says that the series is completed, does that refer to both atmospheric tests and underground tests? Would he, when the series is completed, agree to publish in some suitable form a list of all the tests conducted by all the Powers since testing stated, together with the nuclear Powers involved, so that we may have the full facts on the subject?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider that suggestion. It would be quite a difficult operation to get all this information, but I will certainly consider it.

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that alter the recent statement by the President of the United States there will be the very greatest pressure that at least after the Russians have held their next series of tests, deplorable as those may be, a test ban should be negotiated if it is conceivably possible?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. That has been our object for very many months and I begin to hope that we may succeed.

Mr. M. Foot: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement about the results of the high-altitude nuclear tests carried out by the United States authorities on 9th July.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing as yet to add to the answer I gave on 12th July on this subject.

Mr. Foot: The Prime Minister told us that before these high altitude tests took place he had sent to the United States Government a memorandum drawn up by Sir Bernard Lovell on the subject. Could he say whether the information that he may have received from the United States Government on these high altitude tests has been subjected to independent investigation by British scientists, and will he submit the evidence of Sir Bernard Lovell, amongst others?

The Prime Minister: These tests, as the House knows, are conducted by the United States Government at Johnston Island and are quite separate from the Christmas Island tests in which we agreed to collaborate. It is not yet possible to give a full account of what took place. Our scientists are kept fully

informed as a matter of courtesy by the American scientists on tests carried out entirely on their own authority.

Mr. Foot: When the right hon. Gentleman says that because these tests are conducted at Johnston Island they are, therefore, in some way in a different category from the others, surely we are as much interested in what happens in outer space as the rest of humanity, and we have as much right to know what goes on? Could not the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, get from the United States Government as early as possible the fullest account of these high altitude tests so that all the world shall know what really happened?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we received these because of our close partnership and collaboration with the United States Government. I was only pointing out that whereas at the Christmas Island tests we had a rather different degree of responsibility, the Johnston Island tests are carried out with the United States Government's authority.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the very strong protest made by Sir Robert Watson-Watt, the inventor of radar, against high altitude tests and particularly against any tests that can reach the Van Allen belt?

The Prime Minister: Yes, all these tests have in fact taken place. What I am asked is whether I should be able to publish some comprehensive account of them. I will look into it. At present the results are being what they call "evaluated", and our scientists will be fully informed.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister if he will publish a White Paper, before the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, setting out the state of the negotiations for Great Britain's entry into the Common Market, including the general outline of a possible agreement if this is available in time.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal expects to


make a further statement next week on the progress of the negotiations. If negotiations continue after the House rises, my right hon. Friend will make a report public in the same way as if the House had been sitting. I will consider with my right hon. Friend the possibility of publishing a White Paper when the present phase of the negotiations is over.

Mr. Healey: While welcoming this assurance by the Prime Minister, may I press on him the desirability of publishing a fairly detailed White Paper giving a resume of all the phases of this very complicated negotiation over the past twelve months so that the House as well as the Commonwealth Prime Ministers may have plenty of time to evaluate the results before various conferences meet to consider them in the autumn?
Secondly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is expected that any agreement will be reached on voting arrangements in the enlarged Community before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers meet in September?

The Prime Minister: In answer to the first part of the supplementary, I think the hon. Gentleman has re-stated what I said. I hope we shall be able to do this. It is just a matter of working it out in conformity with our courtesies to the Prime Ministers' Conference. Perhaps I could have notice of the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While also welcoming the Prime Minister's undertaking possibly to lay a White Paper, may I ask him whether he will also ensure that we shall be kept informed of the progress of the Cattani Commission?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bellenger: The right hon. Gentleman has said that if necessary the Lord Privy Seal will make a public statement. Surely the House is entitled to be communicated with directly, even if we are in recess, and the way to do that is, as suggested in my hon. Friend's Question, by publishing a White Paper?

The Prime Minister: No, I think there are two stages. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has made a statement after each stage of the negotiations. The House has been sitting. He made

one, I think, yesterday. He hopes to make one next week. The hon. Gentleman suggested that a similar statement should be made if the House is not sitting. Then there is a quite different question as to whether a summary of all these things could be brought together. That, I was saying, I would consider carefully having regard also to the period of its publication and the meeting of the Prime Ministers' Conference.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of us sit for agricultural constituencies and that the important statement made yesterday by the Lord Privy Seal was carefully curtailed in subsequent discussion? If there is a White Paper published, could full emphasis be given in that White Paper to all the complexities inherent in the agreement reached so far that the Common Market Six accept the principle of an annual price review, as it is the predominating interest in these agricultural seats?

The Prime Minister: All that will be borne in mind. There are two questions —first, the making of a progress report while the House is sitting, the making of a progress report as soon as the negotiations finish; and then whether it would be helpful to bring them all together into a joint publication stating just what are the problems and what progress is made towards their resolution. All that we will try to do to meat the convenience of the House and to meet the quite proper requirements of the country, but also bearing in mind our prior obligation to inform, as we are in every detail, the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Gaitskell: On the two points which have been distinguished by the Prime Minister, may I ask him whether he is aware that the Lord Privy Seal's statements in the House of Commons are published in HANSARD in full and that, therefore, hon. Members have access to them, whereas a statement made to the newspapers when the House is not sitting may only be published in an abbreviated form? Is he aware that this is really the case for publishing the Lord Privy Seal's statement, if one is made when we are not sitting, in a White Paper?
Secondly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance that


the outline of proposals, if such exists, which is put to the Prime Minister's Conference will be published at least as a White Paper, even if it is difficult to publish all the previous arrangements? Will that outline be made fully public before the Prime Minister's Conference meets?

The Prime Minister: As I said, I will consider it, but I could not give a definite assurance now because I have to try to consider what are the courtesies due to the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth.

MINISTER OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (WELSH AFFAIRS)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Prime Minister if he will define the responsibilities of the Minister of Housing and Local Government in relation to Welsh Affairs.

The Prime Minister: It is the responsibility of the Minister for Welsh Affairs to safeguard all Welsh interests in Government matters and to take any action necessary to ensure that these interests are fully taken into account, particularly in Cabinet. This arrangement does not diminish the specific responsibilities of other Ministers towards Wales.
The Minister's general responsibility for Welsh matters is separate from his specific responsibilities as Minister of Housing and Local Government, but the knowledge of Wales gained in the latter capacity is a great help in understanding Welsh affairs in general.

Mr. Thomas: Whilst appreciating every platitude that the Prime Minister read out, may I ask him why in his valedictory letter to the former Minister for Welsh Affairs, he thanked him for his work in housing and local government but seems completely to have forgotten that he was also Minister for Welsh Affairs? Is he aware that throughout the Principality this is taken as a further indication of the contempt which the Government seem to have for Welsh matters?

The Prime Minister: I thought that my right hon. Friend had been so successful in that part of his work that it was not necessary to underline it.

PIPE-LINES BILL [Lords] (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)

Report [23rd July] of the Business Committee to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

Considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee), and agreed to.

The following is the Report of the Business Committee:
That—

(a) the day and portion of a day which under the Order [9th July] are given to the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Pipe-lines Bill [Lords] shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below; and
(b) subject to the provisions of the Order [9th July], each part of the Proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

Table


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of Proceedings


First day
Proceedings on Consideration
10.30 p.m.


Second day
Third Reading
7.00 p.m.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings of the Committee on Nigeria (Gift of a Speaker's Chair) exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. lain Macleod.]

NIGERIA (GIFT OF SPEAKER'S CHAIR)

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

10.50 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a Speaker's Chair to the House of Representatives of Nigeria, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
It falls to me as Leader of the House to move a great number of Motions of very differing sorts. The last one, I recall, was in relation to an Allocation of Time Motion for the Pipe-lines Bill, which did not attract universal applause from the House of Commons. It is, therefore, all the more pleasant that one can be certain of moving this sort of Motion and of having the warm support of all hon. Members in all quarters of the House. It is indeed a great pleasure to have the opportunity briefly to move this Motion, which, of course, the whole House will wish to support. The gift that we propose is in accordance with the traditions that we have, and there have been a long line of such gifts. I am sure we all feel that, surrounded as we are everywhere we look with gifts from different parts of the Commonwealth, it is an excellent thing that from time to time we should remember these links of affection and friendship and that we in our turn should convey our feelings and send similar good wishes to other Legislative Assemblies.
If I may mention the story of this gift, on 19th April this year my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, replying to a Question from the Leader of the Opposition, told the House that it was proposed that Mr. Speaker, on behalf of

the House, should offer to the House of Representatives of Nigeria the gift of a Speaker's Chair, and we have, of course, ascertained that that gift would be much welcomed in Nigeria.
The Chair itself is in the process of being made and is expected to be completed by the end of August. We hope to be able to display it before it is sent to Nigeria for presentation The purpose of this gift is to mark Nigeria's attainment of full independence within the Commonwealth, and it carries with it our very best wishes for her future happiness and prosperity.
All I need add is that the Motion proposes that the presentation shall be made on behalf of the House of Commons. When we accept this Motion, at the same time we will pledge ourselves to honour the necessary estimate. The actual arrangements for presenting the gift will be made by Mr. Speaker and, indeed, I think arrangements are already in hand for it to be presented probably early in November by a small Parliamentary delegation which will be composed of members of the United Kingdom branch of the C.P.A. who will then be attending a conference in Nigeria. This carries our very best wishes to that very great country. Many of us have many friends in Nigeria. All of us wish that great country well, and I am sure we will send this gift with our best wishes for the future.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Denis Healey: I am not quite sure how far it would be politic or even honest of me to express pleasure in being able to agree with the Leader of the House on anything at this moment, but I would say, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, how much we welcome the proposal to give a Chair to the Nigerian Parliament and that we subscribe wholeheartedly to the Humble Address to Her Majesty for this purpose.
I think all of us on both sides of the House are extremely proud of the rôle which Nigeria has been playing in the last year or so as an independent State within the Commonwealth and of the outstanding contribution which it has made in African affairs in general. I was most impressed, when I was in the Congo in January, to find how deeply the action of the Nigerian police and


troops in the United Nations forces was appreciated and admired by the Congolese people. I think that generally one can say that most African peoples have the same impression of the conduct and bearing of Nigeria as an independent State.
I think we are all also extremely proud of the loyalty of Nigeria to Parliamentary institutions, which in a sense is symbolised by the gift of this Chair. We have noted with interest that the precedent of some Parliamentary turbulence which was set by Nigeria in recent months has been followed in our own Parliament in the last week or so.
We were very pleased to welcome Mr. Njoku in London last week as the Chairman this year of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and we shall all be extremely proud that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is holding its annual conference in Nigeria in two months time.
As I have said, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, I fully support the wish of the Leader of the House that Nigeria shall continue to enjoy prosperity and good fortune as an independent State, and we strongly subscribe to the provision of this Chair as a token of our affection and respect for this new State inside the Commonwealth.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a Speaker's Chair to the House of Representatives of Nigeria, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (EXCHEQUER ADVANCES)

10.55 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward du Cann): I beg to move,
That the Exchequer Advances (Limit) Order 1962, dated 2nd July, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.
This is the second Exchequer Advances (Limit) Order, which the House has been asked to approve. I take it that the House would wish to have a short explanation of the matter.
This Order is the instrument for enabling the Exchequer to lend to a number of nationalised industries under Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1956, for a further year. The Order is necessary because of the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1960. This Section provides first that Exchequer advances to the nationalised industries concerned should not exceed £2,050 million in all up to the end of August, 1961. It also provides that advances in each of the two succeeding years ending in August, 1962, and 1963, respectively, may be made only if the Treasury makes an Order under Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1956, fixing a maximum amount for the total advances to be made under Section 42 up to the end of each of these two years, and this Order is approved by a Resolution of the House of Commons.
In July, 1961, the House approved an Order increasing the total amount which the Treasury might lend to the nationalised industries concerned up to the end of August, 1962, from the figure of £2,050 million, prescribed in Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1960, to £2,450 million. The present Order, which covers the period from September, 1962, to August, 1963, increases the limit to £2,930 million, that is, an increase of £480 million. For the avoidance of doubt I should perhaps emphasise that the figure of £2,930 million referred to is a limit on the total advances that may be made under Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1956.
There is no suggestion that the Treasury should lend this astronomical sum to the nationalised industries during


the forthcoming twelve months. The limit of £2,930 million is, in short, the cumulative total that may be advanced from the advent of Exchequer lending to the nationalised industries concerned in 1956, to the end of August, 1963.
I turn now to the purposes for which the sanction is required. The Order applies to lending by the Treasury to seven nationalised industries: they are the Electricity Council, the South of Scotland Electricity Board, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, the Gas Council, B.O.A.C, B.E.A. and the British Transport Commission.
In the exceptional case of the British Transport Commission the Order makes provision for the Treasury to lend to that body only until the end of December, 1962. Thereafter, Exchequer lending to the successor bodies of the British Transport Commission will, under the terms of the Transport Bill now before the House, be under Clause 20 of that Bill. The new undertakings will not be covered by the provisions of Section 42 of the 1956 Finance Act. Both their borrowing and the Exchequer's lending to them will be governed by Clauses 19 and 20 of the Transport Bill.
In the case of the remaining six bodies, the Order provides for Exchequer lending to them for the twelve months from September, 1962, to August 1963. The Order increases the Treasury's lending powers by £480 million. This figure reflects the borrowing estimates for the nationalised industries concerned in the financial year 1962–63 as set out in the White Paper on Government Expenditure Below the Line, Cmnd. 1680, presented to Parliament in April of this year. The new limit also includes an allowance for lending to these bodies in the period April to August, 1963, that is to say, the early months of the financial year 1963–64.
The actual lending in the coming twelve months is expected to be rather more than £480 million—in fact, £510 million—but we shall need to provide for an increase of only £480 million because we shall probably start the next next twelve-month period with a margin in hand by virtue of the fact that advances to the nationalised industries up to the end of the current twelve-month period may well be some £30 million less than the present limit.
The House may be interested to know how the lending figure of £510 million has been built up. Lending to the Electricity Council accounts for almost exactly half of it; the figure is £255 million. This is £53 million greater than in the current period and reflects the need for increasing capital expenditure on both the production and distribution of electricity. Next in order of importance comes the British Transport Commission. We expect to lend the Commission up to £110 million between September and the end of December, 1962, some of it to finance capital expenditure, some to meet normal interest and repayment obligations, and the remainder to meet the Commission's terminal liabilities under the Transport Bill. Lending to the successor bodies will, as I explained, be under that Bill.
The other five boards concerned, the Gas Council, the Scottish electricity boards and the two Airways Corporations, account for the balance of the lending. The Gas Council expects to draw up to £30 million. Some of this will be needed to finance the import and processing of methane gas on the lines explained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power in November last year. The two Scottish boards expect to draw £55 million between them, much the same amount as in the present year. B.E.A. expects to draw £22 million. B.O.A.C. expects to need £51 million, which is about £19 million more than in the current period. This is chiefly due to the Corporation's need to make payments in the coming months for its new fleet of VC 10s.
I do not think that there is anything else I need say by way of explaining the Order and commending it to the House, except, perhaps, to remind right hon. and hon. Members that the Order does not in any way affect the borrowing powers of the nationalised industries concerned. It certainly does not increase their borrowing powers. All it does is to renew and to extend the Treasury's powers to lend to these industries. In a word, it is a procedural and not a policy-making Order. I should like to stress this.
The House approved the policy of lending to the nationalised industries for a further three years when it enacted Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1960,


which, as hon. Members will remember, extended the Exchequer's power to lend to these seven nationalised industries up to the end of August, 1963. The procedure for making annual Orders under this Section is simply the way of ensuring that the House is kept aware of and approves the rate at which we are lending to the nationalised industries concerned. I would remind any hon. Members who have doubts about the case for continuing the policy about Exchequer financing of the nationalised industries that this is a matter which they will have the opportunity to go into thoroughly next year when the present powers for lending to the nationalised industries expire.
With that explanation, I invite the House to approve the Order.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I have the very happy and pleasant duty this evening to be the first on this side of the House to congratulate my hon. Friend upon his recent appointment as Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I hope that he will reign for the remainder of the lifetime of this Parliament, and I know that his eminent career in the City and his astute knowledge of all economic and financial affairs will stand him in excellent stead in dealing with the difficult matters which fall within his Ministerial responsibility.
This evening he has commenced with an extraordinarily difficult Order. He pointed out that it was procedural in character and not policy-making, and therefore I should be out of order if I discussed any of the programmes or the policies of the seven nationalised industries to which my hon. Friend referred. But I should like to address a few comments to the House on an Order which brings within its scope an increase in spending of no less than £880 million.
Once it goes through the House this evening, as I have no doubt it will, we shall have no opportunity of controlling or amending in any way. We are virtually voting this very large sum of money for the capital expenditure programmes of seven nationalised industries until August, 1963, and it rather underlines the criticisms which I made to the Committee on the Finance Bill when

my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer in May, 1956, as to the inadvisability of financing nationalised industries by Exchequer loan, for the House is inevitably called on to vote one huge global sum to seven nationalised industries and thereafter keep its peace, for it has no further means whatever of scrutinising or dealing in any detail with the capital sums for any of the individual industries concerned.
In 1956 three of my hon. Friends joined me in protesting strongly to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer at four o'clock in the morning. My hon. Friends were, first, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, one of the sponsors of the Order before the House. A second was Lord Sandwich, sadly no longer with us, and the third was Mr. Angus Maude, shortly to return to us.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Perhaps.

Mr. Nabarro: Shortly to return to us. I am the sole survivor to speak this evening on this Order. My hon. Friend rightly reminded us that next year when the Finance Bill comes along we shall have an opportunity once again of examining this system of financing nationalised industries, which manifestly is unsatisfactory in its present form. I will not attempt to deal with alternative systems, and I rise this evening really to make two specific points to my hon. Friend, which I hope he will deal with and respond to in some detail.
The actual sum to be spent during the next twelve months on capital account for these seven industries is of the order of £508 million. This is the biggest sum that we have spent on these seven industries in any single year. A study of the Financial Statement for the relevant years will show for example since we commenced this system of Exchequer financing that in 1956–57 the actual expenditure was £284 million; in 1957–58 it was £295 million; in 1958–59 it was £352 million; in 1959–60 it was £424 million; in 1960–61 it was £449 million; in 1961–62 it was £489 million; and in 1962–63 it is to be £508 million.
Though it would be possible for me to adjust all those figures in respect of


rising costs, or conversely, to express the falling value of money, I make the simple point that this year's allocation or tranche on capital account for these seven industries represents by far the largest sum that this House has ever voted. It represents something of the order of 75 per cent. more than in 1956–57, after adjustments for changed money values. Is that increase justified in the case of these seven nationalised industries?
I am not allowed to discuss their individual programmes, but I ask hon. Members to take two of them—the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. They are to spend between them a sum of £55 million. It is because the House is dissatisfied with the conduct of those industries that they are at present being examined by a Select Committee in Scotland called the Mackenzie Committee, to determine whether the application of these capital sums is fully justified. Yet we, this evening, are being asked to vote a larger sum of money for these two boards than ever before in their history.
I therefore ask my hon. Friend, as a Treasury Minister, whether this very large sum of money provided for in the year 1962–63 represents a deliberate loosening of the purse strings. Is it a policy of injecting greater purchasing power into the economy by increasing deliberately the capital expenditure programmes of these seven industries? It seems to me that it might be, because it comes in a progression of items which I should be out of order in going into in detail now but which I mention because they seem to be related to each other.
First, there was the increase in National Assistance Board rates; secondly, the increase in certain forms of public service retirement pensions; thirdly, the relaxation of hire-purchase restrictions and now, fourthly, a very large increase in the capital expenditure of these seven nationalised boards for the forthcoming year. I hope that the Economic Secretary will respond to that point.
Is this a deliberate loosening of the purse strings, as part of Treasury policy to inject more purchasing power into the economy, and reflate—to use the

economists' term—by exciting or promoting a larger demand for capital goods and equipment by these seven industries?

Mr. Houghton: rose—

Mr. Nabarro: Is it about South Dorset, or is the hon. Member going to say something sensible?

Mr. Houghton: Sensible, I hope. Does the hon. Member seriously suggest that there is any connection between an increase in the National Assistance scales and the provision of increased capital expenditure for the nationalised industries? Does not he realise that the increase in the National Assistance scales was based on an increase in the cost of living, which was bearing harshly on the poorest people? Is that really anything to do with capital expenditure for the Hydro-Electric Board in Scotland?

Mr. Nabarro: Yes. I cannot deal with the National Assistance Board in detail, but I used the term—and I shall content myself by repeating it—that this is one of a progression of items in a policy of loosening the purse strings. Four such items have come before us in a matter of weeks. I believe that there is a connection between them.
My second point is in connection with deficit financing. These seven industries exclude the National Coal Board, but several of them are running at a heavy loss at present. For example, to quote from the Daily Mail of 19th July:
Air Losses Pile Up. Amery walks into jobs and cash crisis. Mr. Julian Amery, the new Minister of Aviation, warned the Commons of ' a serious situation '. And while he was speaking, British Overseas Airways forecast a £15,000,000 loss for the second year running.
Is any of this capital sum to which the Economic Secretary referred to be devoted to deficit financing, or is it truly on account of new capital equipment?
B.E.A. is not in quite such a serious position as B.O.A.C. in the matter of trading losses, but it has also been known to earn a deficit, and the deficit of the British Transport Commission is popularly stated to be about £50 million for the last year. I should like the Economic Secretary to endeavour to relate that figure to the sum of £110 million which he mentioned this evening, and say how those two figures can be adjusted to each


other—the one in respect of losses on the part of the Commission and the other in respect of its capital expenditure programme.
That is enough for this evening, because I do not wish to keep the House at this late hour. I should like to conclude, however, by pointing out to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, whom I am delighted to see in his place, that these sums of money are much too large and momentous to be discussed late at night or in the early hours of the morning. The history of this battle to try to bring the nationalised industries within proper Parliamentary accountability goes back to 1956. Then the debate concluded at four o'clock in the morning. In 1958 the debate was switched and came to a conclusion between two and three o'clock in the morning. In 1960 it was deliberately thrust to the end of the queue so that all my hon. Friends and myself had to debate the matter after midnight and it came to a conclusion at three o'clock in the morning. This is the fourth incident where these vitally important matters are brought to the House at a late hour of the night.
I am the culprit in this matter of Statutory Instruments for nationalised industries. I am glad to see present my hon Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), one of the original hon. Members with me in threatening the Government that a large body of us would vote against them. I am glad to see present my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil, another miscreant who threatened to vote with us unless we had this Statutory Instrument procedure. To present it very late to the House when the House is thinly attended, when I see on the benches opposite only four hon. Members of the Opposition—[An HON. MEMBER: "And no Liberals."]—and no Liberals, and not the Chancellor of the Exchequer present with us when discussing the sacred cow of the Labour Party, nationalisation—

Mr. Thomas Fraser: We are not discussing nationalisation under this Order. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has got it wrong. He himself repeated what the Economic Secretary said, that we are not allowed to discuss policy matters under this Order.

Mr. Nabarro: We are discussing the accumulated sum of £2,930 million for the financing of the nationalised industries. A mere thimbleful of moneys of that order is of no consequence to those hon. Members opposite who espouse the cause of nationalisation. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), as usual, is a long way off target.

Mr. James McInnes: On a point of order. Am I correct in assuming that the Exchequer Advances (Limit) Order before us now is in accordance with the provisions of the 1960 Act and does not in any way affect the financial policy of the nationalised undertakings? Is it therefore in order for the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to discuss the policy of these nationalised boards?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): As I understand it, the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has not been discussing policy and has not been out of order so far.

Mr. Nabarro: I am deeply grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for your protection, as always. I commend to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) Motion No. 129 on the Order Paper of the House, standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and others, subscribing to the plea that public ownership should be increased and signed by sixty-one members of the Labour Party. Perhaps he will add his name to it to show his interest in these matters.
I am led astray, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I apologise. I was endeavouring to address my comments to the Leader of the House. These are very large sums of money. On the next Finance Bill my hon. Friends and I will have an opportunity of altering the method of financing on capital account these seven immensely costly industries. I believe that the present method of financing them as enshrined in this Order is highly inflationary. I appeal to my right hon. Friend that when this matter comes up for discussion in the Finance Bill the Whips Office and the Patronage Secretary should not be allowed to manipulate the business in such a fashion as to put it on the Floor of the House in the early hours of the morning, thereby frustrating


the legitimate desire of so many of my hon. Friends and myself to examine these important matters with the meticulous care that they surely deserve.
With these few comments, I hope that my hon. Friend will now reply to my questions.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I should like to join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. His promotion represents a great loss to hon. Members on the Government back benches—

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Ridley: —but I am sure that that loss will be made up by the gain we have secured by having him on the Front Bench.
As he has said, this is a purely procedural Order which follows from the Finance Act, 1960. That Act dealt with the principle on which advances are made to the nationalised industries. It seems to me that there is little that we can say tonight on the very large question of the policy of the nationalised industries and the investment policy which we pursue. In fact, we have already admitted that it is out of order even to discuss the matter, and to that, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) agreed. As I understand the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, he believes that the nationalised industries should raise their money in the market. Were that to happen, as I understand it, we should have no opportunity for a debate under any circumstances.

Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend must not put words into my mouth. It would have been grossly out of order for me to have referred to any alternative method of financing, as he well knows. I do not subscribe to the Liberal policy of raising entirely these large sums of money on the open market.

Mr. Ridley: I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend does not subscribe to that. Now I am confused about what he does want.
It has been brought to my attention that my hon. Friend and others who, in 1956 and 1960, first raised this point about the accountability of the nationalised industries to Parliament, took the line that this procedure of having an Order every year would make the nationalised industries more accountable. I cannot see why this should be so. It seems to me to be out of order to discuss the policy and investment of the nationalised industries in a debate on this Order. I cannot see how the procedure we have gone through increases their accountability in any way.
We have—I think that we are pleased that it is so—three days set aside for discussing the nationalised industries in detail. We are to have a debate on Friday, and that would seem to be the moment when we should discuss whether investments have been wisely made or whether the right sort of investments are made. If there have been losses and mistakes, that is the time to voice our criticisms. I do not think that this improvement, as it is called, in our procedure is an improvement at all.
My hon. Friend referred to the increased capital borrowing in connection with the Order as being an inflationary move. I cannot see what is inflationary about it. About £508 million will be invested in the nationalised industries which is not entirely covered by the Government borrowing; it is largely accounted for by taxpayers' money above the line. So it would seem to be deflationary and not inflationary.

Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend has referred to Friday as being a nationalised industry day. Friday is not a nationalised industry day at all. The debate on that day will be a Government Motion on the Iron and Steel Board. That has nothing whatever to do with nationalisation. It is not a nationalised industry. The nationalised industry day is, of course, a Supply day.

Mr. T. Fraser: It is not.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is out of order in this debate to discuss what is to happen on Friday.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—

Mr. Nabarro: As always.

Mr. Ridley: As always.
All I wish to say is that this does not seam to me to have been a very fruitful debate. I think that there is an important subject to discuss before August of next year, when we are to decide how to finance the capital requirements of the nationalised industries in future. I look forward to taking part in the debates, as I am sure does my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster. I do not think that we shall gain anything by insisting on having an annual Order rather than a more workman-like and long-term arrangement. I hope that the Order will be dealt with speedily.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Robert Carr: The wise allocation of our capital investment is one of the most important matters for the country at the moment. Like many others, I am concerned about the way in which capital has been applied in the nationalised industries in the past. It is, for example, a fact that to produce a 1 per cent. increase in productivity in the nationalised industries it has required twice the investment required to produce a comparable increase in private industry.
The Estimates Committee, among others, in recent years has drawn attention to somewhat lax methods of Treasury control in the expenditure of money, for example in airports and other things associated with the nationalised industries. While agreeing to the passage of the Order tonight, I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in impressing upon my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that, when the method of financing the nationalised industries comes up for discussion next year, we shall expect a most serious discussion and a different method from that we have had in the past. It would be wrong to pass the Order tonight without giving that warning to the Government.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. du Cann: With permission, I will address myself very shortly to some of the points which have been raised. I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will allow me to say how very much I appreciate the most kind things which my

hon. Friends the Members for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) have said about me. I am most grateful to them. I remember very well the earlier debates to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster referred, because I played some tiny and perhaps ineffective part in them. They certainly made a great impression upon me, not least because one of them at any rate took place immediately after my election to the House, when we were dealing with one of the Electricity Bills in Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster may remember. Together we were able to effect, we thought, some improvements to that Bill.
We will pay strict attention to the points which have been raised tonight, particularly the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr). In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, I want to say four things. First, I think that it is worth recording that the total borrowing by these nationalised industries at 30th June, 1962, the latest date for which I have been able to obtain information, is £3,763 million. That compares with their total borrowing power of £4,650 million already authorised by Parliament. In seeking approval of this Order we are well within the possible limit of total borrowing. That is not to say in any way, however, that the advances of these huge sums are matters which should be lightly considered or lightly dealt with. They are very serious matters indeed and require to be taken seriously.
Secondly, I was asked a particular question about reflation. It is obvious —my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster will know this as well as I do from our respective business experience—that it is not the way in any business to plan one's operations, particularly very large business, on a year-to-year basis. In general, investment programmes and the like are settled for further ahead than that, perhaps on a two-year or a three-year basis. That is part of the matter which we are discussing tonight. Certainly the increase in this figure is no part of a policy of reflation.
I was asked particularly about deficit financing. In general, it is true to say that this money is not required for deficit financing. Certainly in the case of the British Transport Commission, which perhaps springs immediately to mind, none of this money is for deficit purposes. As the House will know very well, that is provided from the B.T.C. deficit Vote. On the other hand, there is an exception, and that is the possible case of B.O.A.C.—a matter specifically raised by my hon. Friend the Member far Kidderminster—where a sum of money may be needed to finance losses. I may say that I have never believed in losses—one can never survive on them— and we hope to see a better future for the Air Corporation.
The rise in capital expenditure of the nationalised industries is due to increasing investment by them. In the particular case of electricity, about which I was asked, the rise is due to a rising demand for electricity, a thing that I believe we are all happy to see, since it must in part follow that it is an example of the rising standard of life of our people.
It seems to me that we have been making good progress in establishing a new financial framework for the nationalised industries and I hope that that progress will continue and, perhaps, be accelerated. It is very important that we should consider these matters most seriously. These are large sums of money, even when related to the turnover and the size of the industries concerned. We shall certainly bear prominently in mind the points made in this debate by my three hon. Friends, but perhaps I might add again that this is a procedural and not a policy-making Order, and we look forward to fuller debates on these subjects in the days to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Exchequer Advances (Limit) Order 1962, dated 2nd July, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.

FACTORY, WEMBLEY (NOISE)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

11.31 p.m.

Wing Commander Eric Bullus: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter of great concern to some of my constituents, in which there is also a general underlying principle. Because of the lateness of the hour, I shall try to be brief, but this is an important matter. My constituents have a good case which I shall try to reveal adequately, and I am hopeful that the Minister will grant our reasonable request, which does not call for legislation.
I should like, at the outset, to congratulate my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on their new appointments. I wish them success in their many tasks, which concern and touch the daily lives of our people. I was interested that one of the first pronouncements of my right hon. Friend was a rebuke to the London County Council for its apparent intention not to co-operate with him in London's local government reform. I only hope that he and the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to evade a similar charge that I shall undoubtedly make against them unless they show some concern for my constituents, and co-operation with my local authority.
It is necessary, first, to give a brief background for the record before coming to my special plea. In December, 1942, the Wembley Borough Council granted planning permission for the erection by the Ministry of Supply on behalf of the British Oxygen Co. Ltd., of a factory building on land fronting Carlton Avenue East, in my constituency. That land had been zoned by the council in 1936 for general industrial purposes. I have no doubt that the consent was given because of the urgent wartime need for the production of liquid oxygen. It should be remember that the council did everything to help in the exigencies of war, and I feel that it should not be later penalised for what it then did.
In order at that time to minimise the effect of the building on the adjacent


houses in Carlton Avenue East, a condition was imposed by the council that the land in front of the building should be covered with a screen of trees and shrubs, to be laid to the satisfaction of the council. However, following the erection of the company's building, complaints were received at once, early in 1943, from residents in the vicinity about the noise and vibration caused by the compressors, but because of the war conditions then prevailing, it seemed that little could be done to rectify the position in any way.
After the war—in August, 1950—the company submitted an application for permission to improve and extend the existing building which had been erected following the planning consent given in December, 1942. It is important to state that the council at that time gave long and careful consideration to the application before it decided to refuse it. It refused for two main reasons: first, that it was intended that the extension should contain additional compressing plant and, secondly, that no satisfactory assurance could be given by the applicants that the operation of the plant which it was proposed to install in the extension would not increase the vibration caused by the existing plant which was already proving detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining residential neighbourhood.
The British Oxygen Company appealed to the then Minister of Town and Country Planning against the council's decision. A public inquiry was held in the Wembley Town Hall in December, 1950, at which both the borough council and the residents were represented by counsel. The company's proposals were vigorously opposed but the Minister allowed the appeal and here we come to the crux of the matter. The Government of the day accepted the responsibility for the extension in the face of opposition by the local council. Therefore, the Government of the day must accept the consequences of that decision.
From that date there have been difficulties for the nearby residents and frustration for the borough council, the advice and experience of which had been arbitrarily rejected by the Government. Following the 1950 appeal, which

was granted, British Oxygen proceeded to erect a building and install plant. As the council had anticipated, violent complaints came quickly from residents at the increased noise and vibration caused by these further operations of the company. Considerable discussions were held at the offices of the Ministry in an endeavour to find a satisfactory solution to the problem caused by the Minister allowing the appeal.
In June, 1953, the borough health committee decided to remind the Minister of Housing and Local Government that the siting of the offending plant was allowed by him on appeal and that he should be pressed urgently to take steps to bring the trouble to an end. The reply the council received was most unsatisfactory, but consideration of any further action was deferred because I myself, as the hon. Member for Parliament for Wembley, North, raised the whole subject in the House in an Adjournment debate on 10th November, 1953.
The than Parliamentary Secretary, the present Minister of Transport, gave an equally unsatisfactory reply and concluded by saying that the initiative lay with the borough council—this after the Government in 1950 had rejected the council's well-considered decision to refuse permission for any extension. Despite this further rebuff, the council persisted with discussions with the company which were held from time to time.
Meanwhile, the complaints continued to come in from residents and the council health committee considered possible courses of action in January, 1955. There were three main courses. First, it was considered that purchase of the affected residential property in the area would be too costly and would not solve the problem. That, therefore, was discounted. Secondly, there was the question of compensation for the company under Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. That was deemed impracticable. Thirdly, there was the possibility of legal proceedings against the company and the obtaining of an injunction. That, also, would have involved the council in considerable expense with no guarantee of success.
So the council decided at that time that it was unable to take any further action in the matter and that the further


complaints of residents would have to be forwarded direct to the Ministry. That was the position at the beginning of this year. But since that time there have been two explosions at the Wembley works. The more recent one was on 20th May last, and this once again brought matters to a head. In view of the natural anxiety of the residents, the council sought to arrange an early meeting of representatives of the Ministry, of the council, of the company and of the local residents association. The Ministry reply to the request was that the Minister
notes the renewed concern 
and understood that the matter
which is outside the Minister's province is being investigated by the Factory Inspectorate of the Ministry of Labour.
This reply is totally unacceptable.
I have also received to my representation a not dissimilar reply except that this note was added:
The Council decided not to take any action under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 because an order under Section 26 of that Act requiring the company to discontinue the use of any of their buildings or works would involve a liability to pay compensation which might be heavy. It is true "—
writes the Minister—
that I have power to direct the council to take this action, but I am as unwilling to do so as was my predecessor, since it is usual to leave such action to the discretion of the local authority, who of course would have to pay the compensation.
To that I say "Thank you very much." Of course, the council would have to pay the compensation, but it had no say in the planning permission which was given by the Ministry in the face of the vigorous opposition of the council. While it is recognised that the decision of the council to zone the land for industrial purposes established the value, the decision of the Minister on the appeal in 1950 had the effect of increasing the amount of compensation which the company could claim should the council decide to make an order under the relevant Section of the 1947 Act.
This increase would amount to the value of the buildings and the costs incurred by the company in installing plant and possibly the losses which it might incur should it remove the plant. It is not known what these costs would be. One estimate has been that it would be in the region of £¼ million, and, as the

product of a penny rate in Wembley is £12,700, one can see that this would mean a considerable increase in the rates.
The Ministry suggests that the council should pay compensation when the Ministry's own action against the council's advice was to increase substantially the amount the council would have to pay if the necessary order were made. Also such order would have to be confirmed by the Minister who would thereby admit the mistake of the Ministry in 1950. Should the borough council have to pay for the Ministry's mistake?
That is a very brief history of the case. It is, I maintain, unanswerable. But my main concern is the genuine apprehension of my constituents, and my sympathies are entirely with them. The company, I recognise, is a good one and has been helpful when it could, at some considerable expense. Nevertheless, in addition to the noise and vibration, there is the added worry of explosions, the most recent of which meant loss of life. Some of my constituents are most apprehensive. It has been told to me that some of them are actually frightened to go to bed at night.
The residents themselves have compiled a list, which I understand is by no means complete, of damage to residential property and other effects. There were 26 houses damaged by the most recent explosion, with broken windows and tiles on roofs, and 66 persons suffered slight to severe shock; 8 persons had to have medical treatment for nervous disorder and 90 per cent. of the local residents expressed fear that an explosion could happen again. All of those interviewed wanted the removal of the plant.
No one doubts that the company is a good one and that it has tried to be very helpful in settling claims made for damage, but there is no doubt either that the best and the only thing to be done at present is to get the interested parties round the table.
The company would, I believe, send representatives; the borough council and the South Kenton and Preston Park Residents' Association are pressing for such a meeting and the Government must agree to attend such a meeting. They have so far resisted the invitation,


but I urge—nay, I must demand—that the Minister co-operates with the local authority and actively demonstrates his appreciation of the concern and anxiety of my constituents who have an undeniable claim to be heard.

11.45 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I should like to thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) for his very kind words of welcome. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend is very conscious of his very wide responsibilities in this Ministry, but although I have read the former speech of my hon. and gallant Friend in the debate in 1953, to which he referred, and realise how anxious, and rightly anxious, he is for the welfare of his constituents, I am bound to say that I feel he is placing my right hon. Friend's sense of responsibility a little high to ask for the buying out— for that is what it amounts to—of this company at a cost which he himself puts at £¼ million after some years of establishment in Wembley.
I think that it is fair to point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that 1936 was not a year in which there was any pressure from the national point of view to establish this factory in Wembley. As my information goes, the borough council decided to change the allocation of this land to industrial purposes in that year, but the buildings were not erected until 1942, when they were erected by the then Ministry of Supply. I think, therefore, it must be faced—and I do not want to argue with my hon. and gallant Friend at this time of night as to the degree of responsibility—that the borough council had some degree, and a substantial one, of responsibility in the original mistake, if mistake it was—and it may well have been.
When the former Minister, the then Minister of Town and Country Planning, the late Lord Dalton, came to consider the proposed extension on appeal in, I think, 1950, one must face the fact that the position was that this industrial allocation of the land was settled, that the factory was there and

that a compressor of sorts, though of a different type, was, in fact, at work. At the inquiry—I fully agree with my hon. and gallant Friend—there was, as there so often is on these occasions, a conflict of technical evidence. As I understand it, the proposal was to install what was then a new type of compressor. I have no doubt that the optimism of the technical witnesses called on behalf of the company was perfectly genuine, but, nevertheless, with the advantage of hindsight I think we all agree now that it was optimism.
However that may be, the Minister decided the appeal in favour of the company, and although that decision might be different if taken today I have no reason to believe with the information which was then available that any other decision would or could have been arrived at. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, I have been in my Department only a week, but I am already aware of how difficult some of these cases are. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend appreciates—the planning procedures seem immensely complicated— that if we had means by which the decision of the Minister, which is laid down in the Act as final, could be reviewed there would be endless uncertainty and endless further delay.
As regards remedies available to the Wembley Borough Council, we have to face the fact that this whole planning control procedure, although it goes back to the beginning of the century, is really relatively modern, and it was never the intention that planning control should replace the ordinary common law liabilities or remedies. I think that the very fact that my hon. and gallant Friend makes the point that the difficulties facing the council in deciding whether to take legal action are increased because it has no guarantee of success—which, I think, is almost inevitable in any form of litigation—is in a sense an admission that this case is not quite as clear cut as my hon. and gallant Friend would have us believe. I do not say that in any disparaging manner because, as I said earlier, I know that he is nightly most anxious for the safety and welfare of constituents. But I ask him to realise 'that we, too, who in the Department are responsible for public funds, have our responsibility in the matter as well.
If the council decides that the procedure under Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning Act is out so far as it is concerned, and if my hon. and gallant Friend appreciates, as I am sure he does, that buying out this factory, Which is what it would amount to, at this vast sum is not something Which my right hon. Friend could contemplate after twenty years, the only real remedy, as I see it, is co-operation between the borough council and the company. I have no reason to think that this has not been good in the past. If my hon. and gallant Friend thinks that, by bringing a deputation of representa-

tives of the council and of the company to the Ministry, I can help in trying to work out some means by which this nuisance can be abated, I should be only too willing to assist if I can. But I must warn him that, as I see the matter at present, I do not Chink that this is a case in which it would be right for my right hon. Friend the Minister to intervene and in effect provide the funds to support a Section 26 Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.